This article was downloaded by: [University of Tennessee, Knoxville]On: 21 December 2014, At: 19:54Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Structural Equation Modeling: AMultidisciplinary JournalPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hsem20

Review of Eureka! The Birth ofScience, by Andrew GregoryMichael NewbyPublished online: 19 Nov 2009.

To cite this article: Michael Newby (2004) Review of Eureka! The Birth of Science,by Andrew Gregory, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11:3,484-485, DOI: 10.1207/s15328007sem1103_9

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_9

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

54 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

BOOK REVIEW

Eureka! The Birth of Science. Andrew Gregory. Cambridge, England: IconBooks, 2001, 177 pages.

Reviewed by Michael NewbyCalifornia State University, Fullerton

The world we live in and the way we think about it have both been shaped by sci-ence. The first recorded attempts to give explanations to the many phenomena ofthe world were by the ancient Greeks. In this book, Andrew Gregory gives a veryreadable account of the evolution of scientific thinking from the earliest times ofthe philosophers of Miletus (around 585 B.C.) to Ptolemy and Galen (2nd centuryA.D.). The book follows the traditional division into the periods Pre-Socratic,Athenian, and Hellenic, with particular emphasis on the first two. Some of the dis-ciplines it includes are logic, physics, mathematics, geometry, medicine, structureof matter, and astronomy.

Prior to the ancient Greeks, numerous myths were used to explain the causalstructure of the world. Thunder and lightning were the result of the gods showingtheir displeasure with humans or arguing amongst themselves; diseases were pun-ishment from the gods for committing some sin, which could only be cured by thedoctor diagnosing the sin and determining the purification needed to absolve thepatient of that sin (and this seems to be an approach still adopted today in some cir-cles). Both mythology and a scientific theory can give reasons why events occur.Myths are important to all societies but do not provide verifiable causal effects, anda good myth is as useful as a bad myth. A scientific theory must be verifiable, andcan be replaced by another theory, as has happened frequently over the past twomillennia.

One interesting observation that is made is that technology predated science.Before 600 B.C., the Babylonians had quite sophisticated technology, they devel-oped a workable calendar, and could predict astronomical events; but there is norecord of their attempting to explain them. On the other hand, the Greeks did at-tempt to provide theories of why things happened. Andrew Gregory argues that thenature of ancient Greek society is the main reason for science starting at that timeand in that place. Babylonian society was hierarchical with a powerful priesthood,

STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING, 11(3), 484–485Copyright © 2004, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Michael Newby, College of Business & Economics–ISDS,California State University, Fullerton, CA 92834. E-mail: mnewby@fullerton.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

54 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

which tolerated little dissent. Greek society had the rudiments of democracy, wastolerant of different opinions, and allowed open debate among its citizens. In addi-tion, there were a number of relatively prosperous individuals who had the time tocontemplate the cause of various phenomena, without recourse to myth. Althoughmany of the theories developed during this time were wrong, the scientific methoddeveloped at that time continues to be used in the present day, and much of themathematics, particularly geometry, is still quite relevant.

The golden age of Greek scientific thinking came with the Athenian philoso-phers: Socrates (469–399 B.C.), Plato (427–348 B.C.), and Aristotle (384–322B.C.). The latter two have had the greatest effect on Western civilization, particu-larly Aristotle, whose work was the basis of Western science until the scientificrevolution of the 18th century. During this time, competing theories would be de-bated in public and led to the emergence of a group known as the Sophists, profes-sional debaters who chose a side of an argument and would argue for or against aparticular theory. In many cases, a weak theory would triumph over a stronger the-ory because of the skills of the debater. This approach has been replaced in moderntimes by peer-reviewed journals, where the thesis is compared with accepted theo-ries. However, the Sophist approach is still common in the political arena.

The demise of the Greek philosophical schools was brought about by the rise ofthe Christian church, where dissent was punished harshly. Discussions of causeand effect were deemed unnecessary. As Augustine (354–430 A.D.) said, “Wehave no need … of investigation after the gospel. Firstly, we believe this, that thereis nothing else that we need to believe. …” Unfortunately, this viewpoint persistedfor over a 1,000 years and led to the persecution of Galileo. Similar religious intol-erance led to the destruction of the Library at Alexandria.

In summary, this is an excellent short book with the lesson that genuine sciencecan only take place in a society that tolerates free and open debate, and is not boundby fundamentalist beliefs. I would recommend it to anyone who wishes to get anoverview of the contribution of the ancient Greeks to scientific thinking and indi-rectly to modern Western society.

BOOK REVIEW 485

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

54 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014